I would like to discuss what appears to be a major body of evidence against young earth creationism - astrophysics.

The distances to a large number of astronomical objects have been measured by a variety of methods. Astrophysicists consider the distances to galaxies to be of the order of millions of light years, and the majority of stars within the Milky Way to be up to 100,000 light years away. If this were true, and given the invariance of the speed of light, clearly YEC is false (irrespective of the status of evolution).

Just as one example, a cepheid variable star in the galaxy M81 was observed by the Hubble telescope and measured at about 11 million light years away. See here: http://outreach.atnf...e_cepheids.html

So what is the YEC position in regard to this. Is it:

a ) The speed of light is not invariant, or

b ) All of the objects observed by astronomers, from stars to galaxies to quasars, do in fact exist within 6000 light years of Earth?

I will not try to anticipate responses, other than to say two things:

Firstly, I am well aware that there are quite large error margins inherent in distant parallax measurements, and therefore in the calibration for overlapping distance measurements such as cepheid variables. But I do not think that these would be large enough to get a galaxy 11 Mly way to only 6Kly away. Perhaps I am wrong.

Also, I know that there are large assumptions made when deducing distances to objects beyond the range of parallax. For example it is assumed that the relationship of cepheid variable frequency to luminosity is independent of their distances from Earth. However, in order for this to help creationism you would have to explain why the cepheids within parallax range all conform to a certain relationship between frequency and luminosity, while all those beyond parallax range either follow an entirely randon distribution, or conform to some weird non-linear relationship between luminosity and distance.

At a very simple level, if you are to argue that all observed galaxies are actually within 6K ly of Earth, you would have to explain why their sizes vary so much. Why are some galaxies apparently smaller than stars? And how could that be considering that galaxies, eg Andromeda, are clearly themselves composed of stars??

Though I believe the universe to be more than 6,000 years old I found the explanation in the Answers book to be very interesting. After actually reading their products I have found the YE answer to things is not as laughable as I used to think it would be. It has something to do with objects starting out closer to the earth and moving away after creation. I could be wrong in my understanding or memory of that point, but the YE explanation from Answers in Genesis is in fact c ) none of the above. Here is a snippet from an article regarding option b:

"However, the techniques that astronomers use to measure cosmic distances are generally logical and scientifically sound."

Here is a snippet from an article regarding another option:

"But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this."

Chapter 5 of Creation Answers Book found here addresses the question How Can We See Distant Stars in a Young Universe? Some topics include: Apparently the Big Bang theory has its own starlight problem. We can't be sure as science is always searching for more answers. Did God create light in transit? (probably not) Was the speed of light faster in the past? (it appears so) A New Cosmology... etc.

I would like to discuss what appears to be a major body of evidence againstÃ‚Â young earth creationism - astrophysics.

So what is the YEC position in regard to this. Is it:

a ) The speed of light is not invariant, or

b ) All of the objects observed by astronomers, from stars to galaxies to quasars, do in fact exist within 6000 light years of Earth?

Then there is another explanation that some who believe in the literal truth of the Bible (me ) have: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and after that the 6 creative days took place. In addition, the age of the universe has very little to do with belief in either creation or evolution.

If it takes 11 million years to travel to earth, how can i see it now? I'm only 20.

If it takes 11 million years to travel to earth then the viewer would need to be 11 million years old.

Um. okay, UB313, I am surprised that you responded to that at all. Cass has me on ignore, but if you want to quote me then he can see it. Let's say I am going to have a grandchild and I start traveling to Australia where my daughter lives. After I travel for a 11 months my grandchild sees me even though he is only 3 months old.

In addition, as stated by AIG, "However, the techniques that astronomers use to measure cosmic distances are generally logical and scientifically sound." This is also observable science, unlike evolution.

Then there is another explanation that some who believe in the literal truth of the Bible (me ) have: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and after that the 6 creative days took place.

The Heavens and Earth we are told were created during the 6 days of creation, they weren't created before. For example Genesis 1: 9-10 describes the creation of the earth. How could the earth already have existed before it was created?

In addition, the age of the universe has very little to do with belief in either creation or evolution.

This is false, the theory of evolution is entirely based on the assumption billions or millions of years have existed. Why? Because evolutionists claim this was when the major stages of evolution took place and since evolution is not observable now evolutionists have to claim it occured millions of years ago when no one was there to observe it.

Oh hi Cass. Genesis describes the earth in verse 2: "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was a darkness upon the surface of the watery deep." Why would I assume that the earth was not yet created at this time? After this time the 6 creative days took place: light, day, night, the atmosphere, dry land, plants, swimming creatures, flying creatures, land animals, man.

I will quote Ron to answer the part about the age of the universe supporting evolution:

2- Even if it did have to do with space time, it wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have a wit to do with evolution because ALL life was created after that time.

Then there is another explanation that some who believe in the literal truth of the Bible (me ) have: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and after that the 6 creative days took place.

Your posts directly contradict each other:

Oh hi Cass. Genesis describes the earth in verse 2: "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was a darkness upon the surface of the watery deep." Why would I assume that the earth was not yet created at this time? After this time the 6 creative days took place: light, day, night, the atmosphere, dry land, plants, swimming creatures, flying creatures, land animals, man.

So which is it, did God create the Heaven and Earth before the 6 days of creation or during the 6 days?

This point really should be adressed. Let me use an analogy. Say one person was waiting for a an object for 1 year, then it arrived.

They would have to be atleast 1 year old, for the journey was 1 year.

Now we are told it takes 11 million years for light (the journey) to travel to earth.

That means you have to be 11 million years old. No one is though.

If you had been waiting for the object for 1 year then you would have to be 1 year old yes. But if you had been born after it had started out on its journey then you could be less than 1 yo and still be there to receive the object when it arrived.

(PS I am going to assume that you are being serious here out of courtesy.)

Your posts directly contradict each other:So which is it, did God create the Heaven and Earth before the 6 days of creation or during the 6 days?

It is simple. Let's replace some words for it to make sense.

On April 1st I built a house. I showed it to my family. Now the house was dark and not yet ready for me to live in it. Now in 6 days I: 1. put in the windows and turned on the electricity. 2. painted the walls. 3. Added appliances. 4. put in the carpeting. 5. moved in my furniture. 6. moved in all of the little things that I use each day. So the house was already built before day one, but I still had some things to do.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was a darkness upon the surface of the watery deep." Now in 6 days God created: light, day, night, the atmosphere, dry land, plants, swimming creatures, flying creatures, land animals, man.

''If it takes 11 million years to travel to earth, how can i see it now? I'm only 20.

If it takes 11 million years to travel to earth then the viewer would need to be 11 million years old.''

This point really should be adressed. Let me use an analogy. Say one person was waiting for a an object for 1 year, then it arrived.

They would have to be atleast 1 year old, for the journey was 1 year.

Now we are told it takes 11 million years for light (the journey) to travel to earth.

That means you have to be 11 million years old. No one is though.

Okay, let's say that my husband is going on a business trip to Japan. He can't take enough luggage with him, so I ship a box to the address in Japan where he will be staying. I ship the box on June 1st. It arrives on June 11th. My husband arrives at his destination on June 12th and sees that the box is there for him.

The starlight started traveling to this area before you were born. When you arrived, you were able to see that it had already arrived.

''If it takes 11 million years to travel to earth, how can i see it now? I'm only 20.

If it takes 11 million years to travel to earth then the viewer would need to be 11 million years old.''

This point really should be adressed. Let me use an analogy. Say one person was waiting for a an object for 1 year, then it arrived.

They would have to be atleast 1 year old, for the journey was 1 year.

Now we are told it takes 11 million years for light (the journey) to travel to earth.

That means you have to be 11 million years old. No one is though.

lol

I hope you're joking. When someone 200 yards away honks their horn do you hear it immediately. Does only a person who's been there since the horn was honked get to hear it. What if someone happens to walk by right as the sound waves reach them. Using your logic, they couldn't hear it because they had only been there for .1 seconds although it took .5 seconds for the sound to get there.

If you had been waiting for the object for 1 year then you would have to be 1 year old yes. But if you had been born after it had started out on its journey then you could be less than 1 yo and still be there to receive the object when it arrived.

(PS I am going to assume that you are being serious here out of courtesy.)

Nope this makes no sense still.

Stars generate their own light until they burn out. That means if it takes 11 million years for the light from a star to hit earth you would need to be 11 million years old.

Stars generate their light now. Like fire, a flame continues to burn and give off it's light.

Common sense debunks the whole starlight thing, and there are no problems with starlight with the YEC model because of the above.

Stars generate their own light until they burn out. That means if it takes 11 million years for the light from a star to hit earth you would need to be 11 million years old.

Stars generate their light now. Like fire, a flame continues to burn and give off it's light.

Common sense debunks the whole starlight thing, and there are no problems with starlight with the YEC model because of the above.

Why does it mean that? Please either explain your reasoning or stop cluttering the thread with insincere posts.

I would like to discuss some of the ideas in the AIG link posted by MamaElephant (thx for that!)- some of it is interesting and at least there creationists are trying to offer something substantial.

Unfortunately some of it needs clarification, which may be due to my own limited knowledge of relativity, or perhaps to creationism's limited understanding of astrophysics. I'll post what I think of that link, but I'm surprised there is no one willing to explicate the creationist position on this considering that if what is believed by astrophysicists' is correct then creationism must be false.

Why does it mean that? Please either explain your reasoning or stop cluttering the thread with insincere posts.

Thank you for that.

I would like to discuss some of the ideas in the AIG link posted by MamaElephant (thx for that!)- some of it is interesting and at least there creationists are trying to offer something substantial.

I know, right? All too often these threads are full with very little in the way of understanding or explanations. Many of the knowlegable members have lives to get to, so I am sure that if we give them time they will be here.

Unfortunately some of it needs clarification, which may be due to my own limited knowledge of relativity, or perhaps to creationism's limited understanding of astrophysics. I'll post what I think of that link, but I'm surprised there is no one willing to explicate the creationist position on this considering that if what is believed by astrophysicists' is correct then creationism must be false.

Unfortunately I can't explain much as I have a limited understanding and haven't looked into much. I thought something was better than nothing though, to get us started!

b ) All of the objects observed by astronomers, from stars to galaxies to quasars, do in fact exist within 6000 light years of Earth?

Just to point out to the lurkers:

Atheists/Agnostics already know what most YEC's believe about starlight, the various explanations you can find just with a mere google search (UB313 is just pretending to not know). There's even a page on wikipedia about it: http://en.wikipedia....arlight_problem

So this appears to be a typical bait thread set up by an atheist. Note how he's already rejected my answer. UB313 will reject any answer given to him, because his mind is already made up on this issue. This thread just serves as a typical attack on creationism.

I have been trained in the ministry and negative assumptions are not helpful, but love is. It is my opinion that one reaches more people by not having a chip on one's shoulder from the get go.

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.